Appeal Court rules on Arouca property dispute over garbage bin

The Court of Appeal has ruled on the long-standing property dispute between neighbours.

Justices Mark Mohammed, Peter Rajkumar and Ronnie Boodoosingh affirmed some aspects of the original High Court ruling in the case involving Satyanan Sharma and Ricardo Abbott.

The case arose from a heated conflict between Sharma, an accountant and Hindu pundit, and Abbott, a resident of Arouca, over the placement of a garbage bin. Tensions escalated into physical confrontations, allegations of assault, and property damage, leading both parties to file legal claims against each other.

In its 2019 decision, the High Court ruled that Sharma was not entitled to have his garbage bin permanently installed on Williams Street Extension.

Abbott and his co-defendant had to pay Sharma $3,000 for replacing the bin.

The court also awarded Sharma compensation of $30,500 for medical expenses related to injuries sustained in a confrontation with Abbott.

Sharma was awarded $50,000 in general damages for injuries from altercations.

Abbott was also ordered to pay Sharma and his son, Chandrica, an attorney, for damage to vehicles and property.

Abbott and his co-defendant, Hazelle Harry, were also awarded $25,000 each for injuries suffered in separate confrontations.

Sharma and his son appealed, arguing that the damages awarded were too low and that the High Court wrongly ruled in favour of Abbott on some claims. Abbott and Harry also counter-appealed, contending that the damages awarded against them were excessive and that Sharma had instigated the altercations.

In their ruling on February 12, the appellate judges ruled the original damages awarded to Sharma for his injuries ($50,000) were insufficient and should be increased to $90,000.

Mohammed, who wrote the unanimous decision, also ruled the claim against Sharma’s son for assault and damages was unsupported by evidence, and the order requiring him to pay $25,000 was set aside.

The counter-appeal by Abbott was dismissed, as the court upheld the finding that Abbott was the aggressor in some of the altercations.

“From my reading of the judge’s decision, and the cross-examination of the first appellant in this matter, the judge would have heard the witness’ intonation of his voice, she would have seen his reactions to questions, his manner of delivery of the answers to questions, any hesitations, eye contact and his attitude in court.

“These are all important aspects of examining the credibility and reliability of a witness and his evidence which are lost in transcription.

“If, therefore, the first appellant remained unshaken in his testimony that nothing preceded the one minute and 19 seconds video, and the judge accepted this evidence, then she was entirely within her remit to so do.

“At the end of the day, she was better placed to judge the first appellant’s credibility and reliability in respect of this evidence. As such, if his testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination, as she so articulated, then the lower court was wholly entitled to find as she did.”

Mohammed also said the judge’s finding that the respondents were attacked in the manner they allege in incident #5 cannot stand in relation to the second appellant.

“ It was clear on the evidence before the judge that the second appellant played no part in this incident.

“The trial judge therefore erred in imputing a finding of liability onto the second appellant and ordering that he pay $25,000 in damages.”

There were five incidents involving the neighbours.

The parties will return to court for a hearing on costs.